In fact, assume cost is not a good argument – then why should it even be legal to compile programs that aren’t universally accessible? It’s always beneficial, and just a matter of cost after all.
Or are you perhaps being completely one-sided and unreasonable?
The result of which is, in the USA, a person in a wheelchair can enter nearly every business, use many public restrooms, and generally participate in life on their own.
They may not be the best authority on the question of whether cost is a good enough argument.
>Usually the best argument opposing accessibility is that the authors/developers don’t know what they are doing. When they say accessibility is too expensive that’s what they really mean, and it’s not a good argument.
There's no slippery slope either. If lack of accessibility is just a matter of incompetence and not cost, then there's no downside or cost to adding it everywhere. I don't get the point of not acknowledging that there are costs to accessibility. I get that it's not a good justification in most cases, but there's no benefit in denying that it has costs too. It just discredits the rest of the argument imo.